Advertisements

Religious Freedom: Theirs and Ours

religiousfreedom3

The amount of writing done by social conservatives on the topic of religious liberty is far more extensive than I can get a handle on. But after following prominent social conservatives on twitter, I’ll attempt a response.

There are three ways in which religious liberty is construed by such authors.

A. The ability to have laws which privilege their religious faith over others. From this standpoint there is no neutral standpoint, so either the law reflects “Christian morality” or it opposes it. When the Supreme Court ruled against sodomy laws, for birth control and abortion rights, and finally for marriage equality, the government decided to enact a faith hostile to Christianity. As one author puts it:

Christian morality restricts sexual behavior to the marriage of one man and one woman. The state, in the court decisions and laws of the past 50 years, has accepted the claim of the sexual revolution, and homosexual liberation. But the adversary morality it advances, the right to self-determination in “intimate” and “personal” matters, is just as dogmatic. They can insist that they ought to have sexual choices that they want, and that these choices should be immune from adverse judgment (i.e., discrimination). But this is just another worldview

According to the author there is no legitimate religious view that opposes discrimination. The only legitimate religious view actively supports it. The religious claims of Reform and Conservative Judaism, of Unitarian Universalism, of mainline Protestant churches from the United Church of Christ to the Presbyterian Church USA are not religious. They are a secular anti morality which is to be defeated.

If not defeated, they should be sidelined to allow religious discrimination. In this, the claim for “religious liberty” is the rejection of any and every attempt to compel any business, any government, any public space from practicing non discrimination. Let discrimination have its hold, determined by democratic majorities.

If this is religious liberty, then yes I am opposed to it. Such view would be content with the legal right to imprison LGBT folks, if majorities favored it. In such a view, equal protection for LGBT folks is a zero sum, the more LGBT folks have access to the same rights everybody else has the more the state actively undermines Christian faith and practice. For me then it’d be time to rethink Christian faith and practice.

B. The second view is disturbed by the harsh rhetoric often employed against the religious right, which in this piece, is Christianity. While acknowledging liberal Christians exist, he says “I’ll leave to Gresham Machen the debate of whether liberal Christianity at all resembles orthodox Christianity.” Gresham says no by the way.

I pick this one line to notice a theme. It is never  the case that LGBT Christians can be Christians. And if you follow social conservatives you’ll notice that about 80% of their articles are responding to LGBT folks, opposing legal protections, even opposing their acknowledgement. You can read how GSAs are created to molest children, how monogamy is unheard of among LGBT folks. And at 44 I should be dead by now.

If LGBT folks are unhappy and express harsh feelings towards the religious right, this is not an attack on “religious liberty”. This is the result of a forty year organized campaign to prevent any legal and social protections for LGBT folks. It has been LGBT folks being the constant foil and facing defamation from pulpit to state legislatures.

In Oklahoma  Rep. Sally Kern called gay folks a worse threat than terrorists. If a gay person responds by calling Kern on par with the Taliban, this does not ennoble our discourse. But it has a context. It’s not about an irrational hatred of Christianity. It’s a rhetorical form of self defense.

In the Gospels I learn that self defense can produce an eye for an eye. It is not born out of a love of enemy which we are called to do as Christians.

So I am not satisfied with our current discourse. Not on this issue. Not on any issue. How we move both sides to a different language though, I’m open to ideas. It will presume good will. And it will involve avoiding genuine harm against the other person. Without that in play, the defensive language will continue. With it, dialog is possible.

3. The third use of the term religious liberty involves the religious norms of individuals versus the principle of non discrimination. Negotiating that can be tricky enough but some basic distinctions seem to have been lost in recent debates.

First there is a difference between businesses and individuals. Losing that distinction means losing a meaningful notion of a public space, which all non discrimination laws have been built on. Hobby Lobby does not have a religion even if the CEO does. And if Hobby Lobby has a religion then its employees are subject to it. Thus religious belief now gets to circumscribe the lives of others. That’s a problem.

It’s easy to make this distinction with a large corporation, it’s harder to identify it with mom and pop businesses. There it’s hard to separate the individual business owner and the business itself. Thus the focus on bakers and florists who refuse service to gay folks. And that is what is happening. It’s not refusing to participate in marriages, which these businesses do. It’s because they are gay. We recognize that it is the people involved in the marriage which produces the objection. Which is a classic case of discrimination.

With churches it becomes clear that there can be no compulsion. And this has been recognized with every non discrimination law. The fact that the Catholic church prohibits women priests is not a concern of the government. But what happens when churches play a public role? If for a day they are a polling place, they represent the government. Isn’t that a public space? The MA human rights commission has argued yes.

But the question of what counts as public becomes tricky. Is everything a church does that is open to the public, an example of it being a public space? A worship service, presumably is open to the public but we wouldn’t countenance its regulation. A spaghetti dinner put on by the church is an expression of its ministry. I’d argue that these are the church being the church and cannot be regulated as such.

What happens when churches take on the role of the state. When 80% of foster care and adoption is done by private and religious agencies in TX, the church becomes a mediator of the government, one that has few alternatives. If the government prohibits discrimination, is it requiring religious agencies to go against their mission?

Charitable choice has opened up this landfield of problems as the government has more and more given up its functions to private and religious groups. I’d argue that this is a problem. And if churches take that on, I’d argue that they voluntarily placed themselves as mediators of the state. And that it is not an imposition on their liberty if they have to follow policies of the state, including non discrimination.

But direct subsidies of the government to play the role of the state is one thing. What about indirect subsidies such as student loans for colleges that discriminate, what about tax advantages that exist for religious groups, churches that discriminate? I’d argue that this is passive. Student loans are for the student, not the college. The tax free status of churches belongs to all nonprofits, not just religions.And the removal of these things involves a level of government involvement that opens up a can of worms.

Can individuals be fired for their stance on this issue? I’d say no. That should be protected under non discrimination laws that protect freedom of religion and belief. Can a person be fired for not performing their job because of their religious belief? Yes. Can reasonable accommodations be made to insure the job is done while protecting said belief. Yes. This is an area that compromises can be made.

The standard is to protect individuals. Discrimination because of sexual orientation is a genuine harm. It denies needed services from employment to housing. If there is a way to stop that while ensuring protections for religious beliefs, we’re better off. Under the first definition of religious liberty, such a compromise is not possible. Under the second and third definition, if we want to avoid continual culture war, it is a requirement.

Dwight Welch is the pastor at the United Church of Norman, Oklahoma

 

 

 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. The problem is that laws to ensure freedom of religion and anti discrimination laws contradict each other. Freedom of religion is definitely about certain beliefs, certain levels of new called “discrimination”. This brings up the valud point that laws themselves must be based on moral principle. Moral principle is definitely discrimination and must rightly be so. For instance- Say a strip club wants to set up shop next to an elementary school. Most places say this is “morally wrong” and so, laws are made to prevent morally pervasive places from existing within so many feet of public schools. The basis of this is definitely a type of discrimination. But, this is what its all about. Nowadays the wicked and the righteous want religious freedom but in order to have such it involves the discrimination of the other. You cannot have laws that are not based on immoral grounds though. Laws are meant to uphold the righteous and morality because it is this, and only this principle that ensures freedom. Another for instance- Take this gender bathroom issue for example. Laws are being out into place that pave the way for a person’s private sexual parts to be openly viewed by those of the opposite sex even to the extent that said laws ensure that to prohibit such behavior would be “discrimination”. Thus, freedom is destroyed for the individual seeking moral principles of conscious belief.

    As long as immorality seeks, and gets laws in their favor, freedom will continue to erode. We elect those who make our laws and govern us based on their religious and/or moral beliefs. We do this to ensure that moral principles, which are the basis of freedom, are not trampled upon and freedom destroyed. If we don’t like “discrimination” we won’t like heaven or hell because both places discriminate. We must get over this new anti discrimination bull $#*# because you can’t have it and still be free.

    • Dwight Welch says:

      You kind of demonstrated the first way of discussing of religious liberty. A kind that could not allow for a compromise because discrimination itself is essential to what it means to be a Christian.

      The problem is that this is a conflation of judgement with discrimination. Yes we all make moral judgements, there are ways that are better or worse.

      But discrimination is different, in a legal sense. It has nothing to do with morals. It is a rejection of someone because who they are, based on their religion, their ethnicity, their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or ability.

      One should be be able to make religious judgements, discernment in the life of the church and in one’s own life. But to reject someone, to deny service, to make the law different for individuals because of who they are. That is discrimination.

      • I really enjoyed the distinction you made between discrimination and moral judgments. Discrimination is definitely a more legalese than moral judgments as the latter is more subjective. Discrimination is a legally set definition, as you articulately defined.

        I think the problem is when we begin to mud up the line between moral judgments and discrimination, and using religious judgments as means to justify their discrimination and have it protected under “Freedom of religion”, which of course, applies exclusively to the Christian America. I mean, all you have to do is take a look at the clerk denying marriage license to same-sex couples b/c same-sex coupling went against her Christian values (and more recently, federal worker at the SS office refusing to see LGBTQ awareness training video). Sure, these individuals have every right to practice their beliefs, but their beliefs are preventing them from carrying out the job they’re paid to do, but I disagree with allowing them to make compromises.

        Your beliefs are your own, and whatever you decide to believe and preach, that’s on your own personal time and within places of worship and your own house. To bring that to work, and refuse to do your job, you’re essentially forcing your beliefs on others. That, to me, infringes upon other people’s rights.

        I find it heartbreaking that in 21st Century in one of the most advanced nations in the world, we’re still talking about who gets what rights and who doesn’t.

        • In our small private business we have already decided we wouldnt hire or employ people who are not Christ-like because the nature of our business relies on lots of humility, patience, prayer, etc. If we have an employee that mocks our praying in our meetings, etc, we would just rather not have that person be a part of our business. Thats our constitutional right, like it or not.

        • I do believe that you have every right to control how you want to operate your own business. You want to not hire people b-c they’re not Christ-like, sure. You want to not hire people b-c they’re Christ-like, sure. Your business, you call the shots.
          The issue I have is when beliefs interfere with public sector workers’ duties to service the public. I mean, if I’m waiting in line to get a marriage license, I want to get the marriage license and I don’t need an individual person’s “approval” deciding whether I am deserving of such because the state’s rights dictate that I deserve it.

      • I disagree.In the eyes of the law, in a legal sense, morality has everything to do with law. Thats how its been in this country for hundreds of years. Its only been recently that the left has sought to redefine law to exclude morality, religious belief, etc. Now there is a push to make it against the law for legislatlors to make laws or write into law anything moral that comes from their religious beliefs. Im sorry but if we allow the left to push anti discrimination laws on us we will all be forced to surrender our true moral beliefs and the free exercise of them in public. We have already seen this in action in the case of the private bakeries being forced out of business because they were not able to do business according to their moral beliefs.

  2. Dwight Welch says:

    If you only hire Christians how is this not a violation of non discrimination laws? The civil rights act for one. Why the assumption that a non Christian could not honor, respect the fact that some employees pray? I’m a Christian, had a boss who was Hindu who had a shrine in her office. It never occurred to me to not be respectful. Respect can be expected of employees without applying a religious test for a job.

  3. Dwight Welch says:

    I was not advocating, don’t know anyone who is, that we should lack morality. Only that part of that includes that we don’t deny services, banish from the public realm folks because of who they are. That is why why we have non discrimination laws. And rightfully so.

    • I did say “Christ-like”. I didn’t say “christian”. On any account, non discrimination laws as now being interpreted is about legislating immorality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: